As most of you know, I have a problem with Islam. To be bluntly honest, I don’t trust Islam to not turn radical in its intentions and desires. Time after time, it has been proven it can not be trusted. Even though we are told over and over again that it is merely a religion, just like any other religion, anyone with an eye that will look honestly at the facts can look and see Islam is unlike any other religion. So much so that I wonder if it can really be considered a religion. It is more of a political system than anything else. A political system that roots out and destroys anything and anyone standing in its path. It does have its defenders, as can be seen by reading the comments on my previous post about John Bennett. Some of those defenders hold offices in high places, such as Congresswoman Maxine Waters. It was also evident when Oklahoma voters passed a State Question, amending the state Constitution to prevent Oklahoma judges from considering Sharia Law in their deliberations in any case. CAIR blew a gasket on that one and managed to find a judge to overturn the will of the people of Oklahoma.
I normally would not quote an entire post from another blogger, but Sara Nobel from Independent Sentinel has done an excellent job of pointing out exactly how Maxine Waters, and anyone else who tries to explain how compatible Sharia Law is with the United States Constitution, is completely missing the mark. It deserves to be read in its entirety. I am relatively sure the defenders of Islam and Sharia Law will be out in full force, but so be it. Hat tip to Doug Ross.
Sara Nobel – Maxine Waters is under the impression that Shariah Law can be implemented while our U.S. Constitution is in effect. Anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe and a hater according to her. Democrats like Maxine have been pushing that message for years and it’s taken hold.
In 2012 [correction], the Council of Pakistan Affairs and Islamic Society of Orange County welcomed Maxine Waters to a meeting along with other extremists in Congress like Congresswomen Chu and Sanchez, the California Comptroller et al where she made her comments. They would have been controversial ten years ago but in this PC age, the Constitution is controversial.Congresswoman Waters accused Republicans of attacking the Islamic faith as a national security threat.
That’s patently untrue. It is not Islamic faith Republicans have a problem with, it is radical Islam but she conveniently left that out.
She said that fear tactics accusing Muslims of trying to spread tenets of Shariah into our government has spurred legislation to ban Shariah.
She attacked Rep. Peter King and other Republicans for his hearings on RADICAL Islam. His hearings concerned radical groups like al-Shabob but Maxine claimed it was Islam.
She said she is pushing legislation to ban any racial profiling.
If the people who are trying to kill you are radical Muslims, should you go into senior citizen complexes or Knights of Columbus halls looking for possible terrorists? Maxine’s view of racial profiling is extreme.
Maxine sees the American Constitution and Shariah as nonconflicting. However, having two sets of laws – Shariah and the U.S. justice system – is in of itself a conflict.
Maxine minimized the threat of radical Islam and said the Muslim community is actively working with law enforcement.
The biggest problem with her speech is she thinks Shariah law is consistent with the U.S. constitution. She equates any anti-Shariah law as hate.
At the end of the video, she quoted Daniel Mach of the ACLU (an organization filled with communists and anti-Christian activists) as saying Shariah equals Islam and Muslims and a vote against one is a vote against another. Mach also said that anti-Sharia laws are “motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, plain and simple.”
In other words, don’t offer any dissent or try to keep our rule of law in tact or you are a bigot.
It’s easy to dismiss anything related to Muslims as bigotry but when they insist, for example, that our free speech laws be amended, they give lie to their protestations that Shariah is congruent with the U.S. Constitution.
Huffington Post and other liberal media outlets insist that Shariah does comply with the American constitution.
According to HuffPo, Shariah does not promote any specific form of government; Muslims don’t want to rule America; the Qur’an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews; Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack; and the most “Muslim country” in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought–all hallmarks of Shariah Law.
Experience might tell us something different.
While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam’s Shariah law is the most intrusive and the strictest, especially against women.
Their definition of free speech includes strict requirements about not offending others.
Shariah does not accept separation of church and state.
Shariah Law controls, rules and regulates all public and private behavior. It has regulations for personal hygiene, diet, sexual conduct, and elements of child rearing. It also prescribes specific rules for prayers, fasting, giving to the poor, and many other religious matters. Civil Law and Common Law primarily focus on public behavior, but both also regulate some private matters.
Shariah Law can be used in larger situations than guiding an individual’s behavior. It can be used as a guide for how an individual acts in society and how one group interacts with another. The Shariah Law can be used to settle border disputes between nations or within nations. It can be used to settle international disputes, conflicts and wars. This Law does not exclude any knowledge from other sources and is viewed by the Muslim world as a vehicle to solve all problems civil, criminal and international.
While Shariah only applies to Muslims, how does the United States allow it alongside our own laws and maintain our integrity as a nation?
The United States has a law and it’s called the Constitution. We do have separation of church and state. Another irresolvable conflict.
Shariah Law has several sources from which to draw its guiding principles. It does not rely upon one source for its broad knowledge base. The first and primary element of Sharia Law is the Quran.
If Shariah runs as an alternate system of justice, it would be regarded by most as an infiltration of Islam into our system of justice.
Shariah affects estates, banking, punishments for crimes and so on. Conflicts with our constitution could arise over issues that are considered crimes under Shariah such as Apostasy from Islam, adultery, fornication, defamation (they do not have freedom of speech as we know it), false accusation, drinking of alcohol, et al.
We need to have an honest and open discussion, without emotion, about this issue but people and groups like Maxine Waters, the Islamic Society and the ACLU won’t let us. They silence us with their accusations of racism and hate.
They’re trying to sell the American public on the idea that Shariah Law is congruent with our Constitution. It clearly is not.
Liberals will tell you it is no different than orthodox Jews following Rabbinical Law. These are the same people who go postal if a cross is on display in a public square or if God is mentioned in a school.
That is something we should discuss, but then we would be racists.